Platon Karataev by SC

On the last day of NCPH, I attended one of the last sessions:  Graphs, Maps, & Trees:  Imagining the Future of Public Interfaces to Cultural Heritage Collections.  The panelists/working group grappled with the same issues that we have been discussing all semester:  story-telling, 3D vs. 2D representations, copyright, citability, usability.  How do you tell a complex story visually?

Several of the panelists have wrestled with these issues since the heady days of the CD-ROM.  Questions have never been answered; more questions have been generated by Web 2.0.  Instead, some folks have reconciled themselves to never truly knowing the answers to the following questions:

1.  Why did a visitor come to my site?

2.  How is a visitor using my site?

3.  What are the visitor’s technical competencies?

4.  How do I know when I have finished a web/social media project?

5.  How many/what type of IT technical skills does a historian need?

6.  What are you allowed to do with online data?  (Copyright or distribution restrictions)

In the library world, best practices have evolved and are distributed via white papers or conferences.  Historians have not constructed similar mechanisms.  The panelists bemoaned the lack of research or case study sharing in the profession.  they had to look at non-history journals for guidance.  Museum personnel noted that institutional visitor studies are typically proprietary.

Since the questions above were first generated 20 years ago and have withstood technological change, the time has come to talk of many things.  Even the walrus would recognize that now is the time to actually research and then define best practices.

You don’t have to be a lion tamer to manage people, but sometimes it helps.  Learning how to train animals can give you an advantage in training/managing people.  To avoid confusing animals, some trainers suggest distinguishing between the No and Wrong commands.  Wrong means that you are doing something incorrectly and need to make an adjustment.  No means that you are doing something naughty and need to stop immediately.  Wrong is a helpful, non-judgemental command, while No implies punishment or misbehavior.  Distinguishing between the two words really does help in dealing with people and animals.

Animals have helped leaders throughout history.  Animals have become symbols of power and victory.  During and after the time of Alexandar the Great, he who controlled the most battle ready elephants was considered the strongest leader.  Marina Belozerskaya explores this topic in her book:  The Medici Giraffe.  From Rome to Greece to Egypt to Mexico to France to the United States, Belozerskaya shows how leaders used animals to show strength and power.  Runaway elephants helped derail Pompey’s political career, while a giraffe secured papal influence for Lorenzo de’ Medici.

Some of the stories are familiar.  Belozerskaya interpretes the animal’s contribution and details the living conditions for both the animal and the people of the time.  She exposes how great leaders can see opportunities for seizing or securing power in the most unlikely of places.  Her prose is crisp and descriptive.

A pleasure to read, The Medici Giraffe unites the majesty of the animal kingdom and the quest for power in the human kingdom to illuminate a previously little explored path to political power.

If you are a bitter kitten, you know what the title means.  We will be exploring the digital narrative that is Tom and Lorenzo.  But it’s just a series of blog posts about fashion, I hear the non-believers cry.  Oh, contrare.  If you pay attention and read About, you will sus out the stories and themes that create a consistency in the blog – an environment.  As you read the comments, you will also find an engaged, articulate community with virtual friendships among people who cross multiple demographics.

TLo established the platform:  a blog that constructively critiques fashion and educates its readers about color, cut, and style.  The writing style is distinct:  funny, smart, not snarky.  Some posts posit questions to the readers or include a poll.  The readers elaborate on TLo’s posts and bring their own expertise and perspectives.  If Reader A poses a question about dress construction, multiple other readers who are designers or seamstresses respond.  New readers may be a bit confused by the inside jokes and specific terminology.  After reading a few posts, you too can be a bitter kitten, who bemoans the ubiquity of Photoshop.

In addition to the “you” discussed in Digital Storytelling, TLo uses “we”, obviously, and includes their disagreements about various pictorials or clothes.  Thus, the audience joins the conversation mid-stream instead of being prompted or told to start discussing. T and Lo establish some individual personality traits, but build “TLo” as the main character or persona.  The readers sees the world through the eyes of TLo, not a T post and a Lo post.

The framework of the posts is similar.  A series of photos is posted with accompanying praise, critique, or expressions of confusion.  The tone is always constructive and intelligent.  Occasionally, TLo, who do moderate the comments, will state which topics are off-limits – i.e. no more comments about Rose McGowan’s plastic surgery.

The community was not created overnight, and the blog has undergone several iterations.  Every story has drafts until the author finds his/her voice and focuses on the key themes.  Other social media platforms are included, as well as live blogging for special events.  Now that TLo have established the base story template for their environment, they will write new chapters until they lose their audience.

While TLo occasionally appear on TV or give radio interviews, they rarely link to the parent websites or include those files on their site.  Their narrative is photos and text.  Those other media experiences would push readers away from the main site and from posting their own opinions.  The interactive community is solely at this blog-site.

No matter what fancy AV bells and whistles you want to use, the words ultimately attract the reader.  If you can write well with a specific style and coherency, you may be able to build an interactive blog site.  If your story or site lacks style or overwhelms with technology, the reader won’t feel connected.  A good digital narrative invites a reader into its world and allows the reader to create his/her own character.  It also recognizes that some of the readers have more expertise than the author and doesn’t mind.

More importantly, both Shelley O (Michelle Obama) and Cathy Cambridge (Katharine, Duchess of Cambridge) are around to cleanse the sartorial palate.

Being 1/2 Czech and 1/8 Scot, I am genetically pre-disposed to appreciating free stuff.  The Internet has produced a smorgasbord of content and applications available for one and all.  In the early days of the web, some people believed everything on the web should and would remain free.  As the reality of rent/mortgage payments, food, and video game costs set in, even those living in their parents’ basements realized that cash was necessary.  Free versions of applications and platforms still exist, allowing you to kick the tires and hopefully purchase the more robust pay version.

Omeka is useful for a subset of web users who want to combine text, files, and images in a exhibit type setting.  The learning curve is a bit steep because the different free themes display different sets of information.  You don’t always know what you have or what you are missing.  As I created my site, I found the interface very repetitive, which may be resolved if you have multiple exhibits.  I also found the themes pretty clunky with limited customization, unlike WordPress.  If my exhibit is strictly images, Photobucket or Flickr are better suited.  If I had audio and video files, Omeka would be great.

If you have the time, the staff, and the budget, Omeka is an elegant solution to quickly create and to easily maintain an online exhibit.  Like any other application, you need the time and personnel dedicated to learning the ins and outs of the functionality.  Gulag History, Making the History of 1989 and Inventing Europe were robust sites with multiple file types; they used Omeka to its best advantage.  I look forward to using Omeka in the future when I have multimedia files to share.

Looking at various Presidential library/historic site websites, you see quite the gamut.  The JFK Library is probably the crown jewel; Jackie had taste, which still permeates their ventures.  Washington, Jefferson, and Madison have pretty spiffy websites, considering their Founding Father status.  The more interesting sites belong to the two Presidents of the 1920s:  Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover.

Silent Cal’s site is as modest as he. It does have a snazzy video at the bottom of the home page.  The site is a bit cluttered and very texty.  If you are looking for information about Calvin Coolidge on the web, this site is your best resource.  It’s an old school website, but a researcher’s dream.  The section on Grace Coolidge is also robust.  If you are a teacher looking for tools to educate students about the Presidency and First Ladies, the site has those materials.  You know they are working with a small budget, so they put the money in information, not razzmatazz.  I do regret not attending one of the Coolidge July 4th celebrations when I lived in New England, but that dream can still come true.

I have visited the Herbert Hoover Presidential site.  The best part is wandering through the museum and noting how hard they work at not mentioning or depicting FDR.  The site is part of NARA and NPS.  It is snazzier than the Coolidge site and does include the Laura Ingalls Wilder archive.  The website does a disservice to the physical location.  The Hoover site is located in the Iowa prairie and also serves to preserve prairie-land.  It’s a little village in the prairie.  The link to the NPS site for the acreage didn’t work.  Like Coolidge, links and materials are clearly labelled and available.  Lou Henry Hoover doesn’t get the space that Grace Coolidge received.  As I recall, Grace’s official White House portrait features her in a bright red 1920′s style dress; Lou’s portrait was more subdued (can’t find good online links).  Both women were incredibly accomplished.  Lou’s life has finally received serious biographical treatment over the past decade.

Are these good websites?  Are they well designed websites?  Let’s ask the key questions:

1.  What is the purpose of this website?

2.  Who is the audience for this website?

3.  What resources are available to create and to maintain this website?

4.  Will the audience browse the site or immediately click off?

Both website educate their audiences about their respective Presidents.  The Coolidge site is very serious about its educational mission and provides as much information as possible.  The Hoover site is part of NARA and NPS, so it probably has to conform to those institutional standards.  Hoover has better access to maintenance and design resources, while Coolidge is putting all the money on the information.

The audience question is tougher.  Hoover has to have a bit of tourist appeal to drive physical visits.  Coolidge doesn’t have that pressure or expectation.  They presume educators or Coolidge fans are the audience and support that audience with as much information as possible.  The Hoover site is more browseable.  If people come to the Coolidge site, they are specific in that purpose and will work through the myriad of menus to get to the meaty content.

Could they both be redesigned for Web 2.0?  Sure.  But who will pay to maintain that functionality?  Who will feed the multimedia content beast?  Someone has to actually provide real information on the now defunct information superhighway.  Both of these sites appear quite realistic about their resources and are putting their effort into providing real information.  They aren’t sexy and they know it.

Is there anything Photoshop can’t do?  It strikes me as one of those tools that solves multiple real problems and that encourages self-delusion.  Artist do employ collage techniques.  Just because you can use Photoshop to create photo collages/composites doesn’t mean you are an artist.  See my composite example as proof:

I have offended my own sense of aesthetics.  That’s OK.  It’s a learning experience.  Generally speaking, I am not a collage/composite image fan.  Always looks fake to me.  I also hate green screen in movies.  Looks very flat.  Some people can create compelling composites and kudos to them.

I am more of a fan of the blemish/scratch removal function.  Let’s look at scratchy Baby Samantha:

She’s a little sun-faded, too.  Haven’t learned how to fix that problem yet.  Let’s look at de-scratched Baby Samantha:

Too adorable.  I still have the mouse.  It’s a bit faded, but the wind-up music part that plays Brahms Lullaby still works.  Don’t make toys like they used to.  Our Lincoln Logs were real wood – dag nab it.

Back to Photoshop, it’s a very useful tool whose depths can only be plumbed in multiple sessions.  Mouse control (computer mouse not Brahms mouse) is critical.  I find the computer lab mouse difficult to control.  My touchpad has spoiled me.

*A special note for the copyright police, I only post images that I took/own.  While the composite falls outside that rule, the photos were distributed in class.  Otherwise, I link to the original website.  If I am going to go to jail or pay hefty fines, my crime will be worse than copyright infringement.

Sharing photos online continues to be problematic.  If you want to protect your photo, you need to add watermarks.  Flickr really, really, really want you to share your address book/Facebook friends/Twitter twits with them – I don’t rat out my contacts.  The Flickr aesthetic resembles visual vomit to me.  I like white space, which Flickr uses.  But the voluminous amounts of texts and unbalanced screen layouts constantly challenge the eye to readjust.

I prefer Photobucket:  cleaner interface, fewer demands for your contacts, and an awesome greyhound gif animation.  I actually use Facebook to share photos with my family and friends.  If they don’t want to join Facebook, I just email it. Again, I don’t rat out anyone to an online service.

Webshots is part of the American Greetings empire.  I haven’t really investigated this service, but have noticed other people use it in conjunction with their personal blogs.  See one photo on the blog site and then click through to someone’s Webshots album.  You can also send e-cards and create postcards of your photos via the site.  A bit more for the individual or professional photographer (has downloadable software).  The commenting and tagging features appear limited.  You can purchase photos, so there is an e-commerce component, too.  Overall, a bit more control and you don’t have to rat out anyone.

Obey the hound. Be loyal to your family & friends.

Answering the call to find a blog where museum personnel and the general public interact, I stumbled across John Bates’ blog for the Field Museum.  Bates works in the bird division and posts thoughtful comments with gorgeous pictures.  His writing style is inviting.  People don’t comment or “like” all his posts, but he receives more interactions than the other museum blogs.

I didn’t conduct a comprehensive search.  Based on my non-museum blog readings, Bates creates a similar space to other participatory blogs.  He enjoys writing about his specific topic, provides factual information in an engaging style (doesn’t condescend to his readers), includes stunning pictures, and uses I/we to create that personal touch.

If you are looking for a template of an interactive museum blog, Bates creates a foundation.  The bird pics are pretty cool, too.

When museums look to online environments, they must ask themselves about the image to project.  Should their online space mimic their physical environment?  Can their online space fulfill their exhibit fantasies – no cost or space restrictions?

In “Model of the New Space for Online Learning,” Perry & Arbach argue that museums should consider themselves as invaders of an individual’s personal space.  Informality and collaboration trump goal-oriented learning and shared authority.  Ultimately, the online museum experience should be personalized/individualized.

Is that possible?  How would a museum know the interests/personalities of its online visitors?  Should a museum egalitarianly share authority with online, unknown visitors?  For a small to mediums-sized museum, how does the museum director prioritize scarce resources?  Should in-person visitors who are paying admission trump online visitors who are not contributing financially?

My name actually means listener.  I sometimes fail to live up to my moniker.  It does serve as an omnipresent reminder to read/listen to content.  Blogs, Twitter, Facebook, and other social media encourage you to produce reams of content.  If we are all producing content, who will read all this bilge?

Do I have a personal blog and a personal Facebook account?  Yes.  I use them to share pictures and information with my real friends – people I have met in person and actually like — and with my art & literature teachers & classmates.  Random people occasionally run across my posts, and that’s fine.  I don’t post anything that can’t be blared on broadcast news.  I have no expectation of privacy or corporate responsibility from social media companies.

Facebook views online privacy as a joke.  Twitter, the most evil company of all, abdicates any responsibility to individual users, but kowtows to the government.  No #Occupy?  Hypocrites.  A couple of years ago, someone used my email address to set up a Twitter account to sell porn.  Every day, I received angry emails from porn customers who thought they had been screwed out of their porn order.  Twitter’s response:  we just supply the platform; our users can do whatever they want; you must have clicked on the approval; we don’t have access to delete user’s accounts.  Really?  Every IT company can turn off a user.  I could prove a 10 year ownership of that email address and regard Twitter as an inane waste of time.  After several months of this circus, I told Twitter that my lawyer would be sending them a subpoena for their records and that I had sent this little story to several media outlets.  Miraculously, Twitter disabled the porn account within 24 hours.

Being forced to open a Twitter account merely confirms my longstanding position that the content is dreck.  Even Margaret Atwood succumbs to the banal.  What hope is there for the rest of us?